Literature DB >> 28975361

Current practice patterns and knowledge among gynecologic surgeons of InterStim® programming after implantation.

Deslyn T G Hobson1, Jeremy T Gaskins2, LaTisha Frazier3, Sean L Francis4, Casey L Kinman4, Kate V Meriwether4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to describe surgeons' current practices in InterStim® programming after initial implantation and their knowledge of programming parameters. We hypothesized that surgeons performing their own reprogramming would have increased knowledge.
METHODS: We administered a written survey to attendees at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Scientific Meeting and analyzed those on which surgeons indicated they offer InterStim® care. The survey queried surgeon characteristics, experience with InterStim® implantation and programming, and clinical opinions regarding reprogramming and tested six knowledge-based questions about programming parameters. Correct response to all six questions was the primary outcome.
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five of 407 (33%) attendees returned the survey, of which 99 met inclusion criteria. Most respondents (88 of 99; 89%) were between 36 and 60 years, 27 (73%) were women, 76 (77%) practiced in a university setting, and 76 (77%) were trained in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS). Surgeons who had InterStim® programming training were more likely to perform their own programming [15/46 (32%) vs 6/47 (13%), p = 0.03]. Most answered all knowledge-based questions correctly (62/90, 69%); no surgeon characteristics were significantly associated with this outcome. Most surgeons cited patient comfort (71/80, 89%) and symptom relief (64/80, 80%) as important factors when reprogramming, but no prevalent themes emerged on how and why surgeons change certain programming parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons who had formal InterStim® programming training are more likely to perform programming themselves. No surgeon characteristic was associated with improved programming knowledge. We found that surgeons prioritize patient comfort and symptoms when deciding to reprogram.

Entities:  

Keywords:  InterStim® programming; Practice patterns; Sacral neuromodulation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28975361     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3496-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  8 in total

1.  Sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence. Sacral Nerve Stimulation Study Group.

Authors:  R A Schmidt; U Jonas; K A Oleson; R A Janknegt; M M Hassouna; S W Siegel; P E van Kerrebroeck
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Sacral neuromodulation for nonobstructive urinary retention: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Carey Gross; Mounira Habli; Christopher Lindsell; Mary South
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.091

3.  Results of sacral neuromodulation therapy for urinary voiding dysfunction: outcomes of a prospective, worldwide clinical study.

Authors:  Philip E V van Kerrebroeck; Anco C van Voskuilen; John P F A Heesakkers; August A B Lycklama á Nijholt; Steven Siegel; U Jonas; Clare J Fowler; Magnus Fall; Jerzy B Gajewski; Magdy M Hassouna; Francesco Cappellano; Mostafa M Elhilali; Douglas F Milam; Anurag K Das; H E Dijkema; Ubi van den Hombergh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Discrepancies in the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon workforce.

Authors:  Tyler M Muffly; Robbie Weterings; Mathew D Barber; Adam C Steinberg
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.091

5.  Results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter study evaluating sacral neuromodulation with InterStim therapy compared to standard medical therapy at 6-months in subjects with mild symptoms of overactive bladder.

Authors:  Steven Siegel; Karen Noblett; Jeffrey Mangel; Tomas L Griebling; Suzette E Sutherland; Erin T Bird; Craig Comiter; Daniel Culkin; Jason Bennett; Samuel Zylstra; Kellie Chase Berg; Fangyu Kan; Christopher P Irwin
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.696

6.  Long-term efficacy and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Anders Mellgren; Steven D Wexner; John A Coller; Ghislain Devroede; Darin R Lerew; Robert D Madoff; Tracy Hull
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of urgency-frequency symptoms: a multicenter study on efficacy and safety.

Authors:  M M Hassouna; S W Siegel; A A Nÿeholt; M M Elhilali; P E van Kerrebroeck; A K Das; J B Gajewski; R A Janknegt; D A Rivas; H Dijkema; D F Milam; K A Oleson; R A Schmidt
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Programming InterStim for faecal incontinence.

Authors:  K R Cattle; L Douglas; E S Kiff
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 3.788

  8 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Programming Algorithms for Sacral Neuromodulation: Clinical Practice and Evidence-Recommendations for Day-to-Day Practice.

Authors:  Paul A Lehur; Michael Sørensen; Thomas C Dudding; Charles H Knowles; Stefan de Wachter; Stefan Engelberg; Klaus E Matzel
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-03-09
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.